Talk:Ubirajara jubatus

Controversy?
Should there be any mention of the controversy surrounding Ubirajara's description in the article? I'm still relatively new, so I'm not entirely sure if this should be brought up.

Borophagus (talk) 14:22, 17 December 2020 (UTC)


 * If the controversy is mentioned by reliable sources, it should be mentioned under the NPOV policy. That bringing up the issue might be painful to the scientists involved, is irrelevant.--MWAK (talk) 11:20, 19 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Okay. When I have time, I'll add a section discussing it.--Borophagus (talk) 12:45, 23 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Nevermind, it's already been added.--Borophagus (talk) 12:47, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

I've singled out the controversy in a section of its own because it has attracted and sustained significant attention in journals, magazines, and newspapers. As a consequence, the topic of "(neo)colonial paleontology" has become notable and justifies its coverage, either in Ubirajara jubatus or in Neo-colonial_science. fgnievinski (talk) 06:06, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Invalid?
Why does it say its a nomen nudum? IS IT NO LONGER A VALID GENUS? Magnatyrannus (talk) 18:30, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * See here:  --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:00, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Archived here. fgnievinski (talk) 05:16, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Will Ubirajara jubatus ever be confirmed or will it stay invalid/dubious?
Since it was returned to its original location in Brazil, I doubt that it will ever be determined or confirmed as a valid species due to the controversy. BoiaBoiaMans (talk) 21:46, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That is exactly how it will become a valid taxon, because the proper authorities will re-describe it, most likely under a new name. It was never considered dubious, that's a different issue, just invalidly named. FunkMonk (talk) 21:53, 30 June 2024 (UTC)